Plan Review Project: 101 Issues Found

Summary: Sheet S004 includes a roof deck schedule/detail indicating a metal roof deck system (deck mark D1 is “2.0D DOVETAIL” with welded attachments) and includes a note explicitly referencing “METAL DECK”. Sheet S400 framing elevation notes call for “ROOF SHTG. PER PLAN” and “2x JOIST PER PLAN, TYP.”, which indicates a wood-framed roof with sheathing. These are conflicting roof structural systems for ...

Why it matters: This affects the primary roof diaphragm and supporting framing selection (steel deck vs wood sheathing), attachment requirements, and coordination of roof penetrations/supports. If not clarified, it can result in procurement and installation of the wrong roof framing/deck system and invalidates r...

Suggested next step: Confirm the intended roof structural system for the areas shown on S400 (e.g., Elevation at Gridline 'C' - South): is the roof intended to be metal deck (2.0D dovetail) or wood sheathing over 2x joists/trusses? If both systems occur, identify limits of each roof type on the pl...

RFI draft: Confirm the intended roof structural system for the areas shown on S400 (e.g., Elevation at Gridline 'C' - South): is the roof intended to be metal deck (2.0D dovetail) or wood sheathing over 2x joists/trusses? If both systems occur, identify limi...

Summary: Detail 4H (Plywood Sheathing) indicates in the panel schedule that the diaphragms are fastened using "10d COMM." nails. However, Note 4 states that the allowable loads "MAY BE INCREASED 40% FOR WIND DESIGN." This contradicts CBC Section 2306.2, which requires wood-frame diaphragms to be designed in accordance with AWC SDPWS and exclusively limits the 40 percent increase for wind design to allow...

Why it matters: Applying a 40% allowable load increase to nailed wood structural panels for wind design relies on obsolete provisions that have been removed from the building code and AWC SDPWS. Utilizing this detail as drawn will result in an under-designed diaphragm for wind load cases by a factor of 1.4, whic...

Suggested next step: Please revise Note 4 in Detail 4H to remove the 40% allowable load increase for wind design for nailed wood structural panels, ensuring the allowable loads strictly comply with the un-increased values per AWC SDPWS as required by CBC Section 2306.2.

RFI draft: Please revise Note 4 in Detail 4H to remove the 40% allowable load increase for wind design for nailed wood structural panels, ensuring the allowable loads strictly comply with the un-increased values per AWC SDPWS as required by CBC Section 2306.2.

Summary: Detail 6F specifies a "CS20 x 3'-0" LONG STRAP" to be fastened to flat blocking that is only "TOE NAILED TO O.W.T CHORD". A CS20 strap is a primary structural tension tie intended to resist lateral or uplift forces. Relying on toenails to anchor the flat blocking to the supporting Open Web Truss (O.W.T.) chord fails to provide a complete and reliable load path, as toenails do not possess the wi...

Why it matters: Because toenails have limited structural capacity and are prone to splitting the blocking, they create a weak link in the connection. This breaks the continuous load path required for the roof diaphragm, which could lead to a localized failure or disconnection of the roof framing during a wind or...

Suggested next step: Detail 6F indicates a CS20 tension strap is fastened to flat blocking that is only toe-nailed to the Open Web Truss chord. Toenails do not provide sufficient capacity to transfer the tension load from the strap, breaking the continuous load path. Please provide an engineered p...

RFI draft: Detail 6F indicates a CS20 tension strap is fastened to flat blocking that is only toe-nailed to the Open Web Truss chord. Toenails do not provide sufficient capacity to transfer the tension load from the strap, breaking the continuous load path. ...

Summary: Detail 4F 'I-JOIST HANGER CONN.' specifies Simpson U-series sawn lumber hangers (U24, U26, U210) to support the 'I- JOIST PER PLAN'. However, U-series sawn lumber hangers are dimensioned to accommodate nominal 2x dimensional lumber, which has a minimum dressed dry width of 1-1/2" (per NDS Table 1A). Detail 6F 'I-JOIST PROFILE' specifies that the RED-I series I-Joists used on this project have m...

Why it matters: Specifying an undersized hanger for an I-joist is a critical constructability issue. Field framing crews will be unable to fit the 1-3/4" or wider I-joist flanges into the 1-1/2" hanger seats. Attempting to force the connection by field-notching the I-joist flanges to fit into the undersized hang...

Suggested next step: Please revise Detail 4F to specify proper I-Joist compatible hangers (e.g., Simpson IUS, ITT, or equivalent series) that correctly accommodate the 1-3/4", 2-1/2", and 3-1/2" flange widths of the scheduled RED-I joists, rather than U-series hangers designed for sawn lumber.

RFI draft: Please revise Detail 4F to specify proper I-Joist compatible hangers (e.g., Simpson IUS, ITT, or equivalent series) that correctly accommodate the 1-3/4", 2-1/2", and 3-1/2" flange widths of the scheduled RED-I joists, rather than U-series hangers...

Summary: Detail 4K provides typical notching limits for a "WOOD JOIST", allowing an end notch of "d/5 MAX. @ ENDS" and a tension or compression side notch away from the ends ("MAXIMUM DEPTH OF NOTCH (TOP OR BOT.) FROM 3d FROM SUPPORT TO 1/3 POINT OF SPAN") of "d/10". However, the drawings specify "I-JOIST/LVL PER PLAN" for framing (e.g., in Detail 8D). Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) is defined by the bui...

Why it matters: Because LVL is specified as a joist material for this project, a framing contractor is likely to apply the generic "WOOD JOIST NOTCH" detail limits to the LVL members. Notching an LVL member beyond 1/10 of its depth at the ends, or notching its tension/compression side in the span, will severely ...

Suggested next step: Detail 4K allows notch depths and locations that violate NDS 8.4.1.1 requirements for Structural Composite Lumber (SCL). Since LVL is utilized as a joist material on this project, please clarify if Detail 4K is intended to exclude SCL members. Request the addition of an SCL-sp...

RFI draft: Detail 4K allows notch depths and locations that violate NDS 8.4.1.1 requirements for Structural Composite Lumber (SCL). Since LVL is utilized as a joist material on this project, please clarify if Detail 4K is intended to exclude SCL members. Req...

Summary: Detail 6K allows diagonally slotted holes in the plate washer with a "MAX. SLOT LENGTH OF 1 3/4"" and specifies to "PROVIDE STD. CUT WASHER BTWN. THE PLATE WASHER & NUT". The shearwall schedule (Detail 8K) specifies "5/8"Ø" anchor bolts. A standard cut washer for a 5/8" bolt has an outer diameter of approximately 1.75". Placing a 1.75" outer-diameter washer over a 1.75" long slot provides zero ...

Why it matters: This configuration violates the NDS requirement that metal parts must be designed to resist failure in bearing, bending, and buckling. During construction, if standard cut washers are installed over these maximum-length slots, the connection will lack the structural integrity required to anchor t...

Suggested next step: Revise Detail 6K to require a heavy plate washer or a structural washer with an outer diameter significantly larger than the maximum 1 3/4" slot length (e.g., minimum 2.5" OD) instead of a "STD. CUT WASHER" to ensure adequate bearing over the slot.

RFI draft: Revise Detail 6K to require a heavy plate washer or a structural washer with an outer diameter significantly larger than the maximum 1 3/4" slot length (e.g., minimum 2.5" OD) instead of a "STD. CUT WASHER" to ensure adequate bearing over the slot.

Summary: The drawing specifies an 'LVL LEDGER' to support canopy framing on an 'EXTERIOR SHEARWALL ELEVATION'. According to NDS Section 8.1.4, structural composite lumber (such as LVL) is limited to dry service conditions (moisture content less than 16%) and 'shall not be used in higher moisture service conditions unless specifically permitted by the structural composite lumber manufacturer.' Because th...

Why it matters: Using standard, untreated LVL in an exterior, higher-moisture environment can lead to rapid deterioration, delamination, and structural failure of the canopy support assembly. This will likely be flagged as a critical defect during plan review or lead to a costly field replacement if constructed.

Suggested next step: Please confirm if the 'LVL LEDGER' will be an exterior-approved, preservative-treated SCL product specifically permitted by the manufacturer for wet service per NDS 8.1.4, or if the detail should be revised to specify pressure-treated sawn lumber.

RFI draft: Please confirm if the 'LVL LEDGER' will be an exterior-approved, preservative-treated SCL product specifically permitted by the manufacturer for wet service per NDS 8.1.4, or if the detail should be revised to specify pressure-treated sawn lumber.

Summary: Detail 14 (8B) illustrates a "RAKED DBL. TOP PLATE" condition where the end profiles of the "I-JOIST PER PLAN" are shown bearing directly under the sloped roof sheathing line. To achieve a flush fit against the sloped roof sheathing without an intermediate beveled bearing plate, the top flange of the I-joist is depicted as being cut or beveled to match the roof pitch. Section 7.4.4 of the build...

Why it matters: Ripping or beveling the flange removes critical structural material from the joist's primary load-carrying tension/compression block. Field-cutting the top flange of an I-joist to accommodate a raked roof pitch will severely compromise the structural integrity of the member and void the manufactu...

Suggested next step: Submit an RFI to the Structural Engineer requesting a revised detail for the raked roof condition that leaves the I-joist flanges intact. Request approval to utilize a beveled bearing block/plate on top of the uncut joist flange to match the roof slope, or clarify if a variabl...

RFI draft: Submit an RFI to the Structural Engineer requesting a revised detail for the raked roof condition that leaves the I-joist flanges intact. Request approval to utilize a beveled bearing block/plate on top of the uncut joist flange to match the roof ...

Summary: The Roof Framing Plan (S300) specifies detail "8F / S701" at a horizontal framing band representing an outer roof edge/eave. However, Detail 8F on S701 is titled "RIDGE & DBL. STUDS" and depicts a ridge condition with two sloped roof members meeting at a peak over double studs.

Why it matters: A ridge detail cannot be applied to a flat eave or edge condition. This mismatch will confuse framing contractors regarding the intended edge framing, blocking, and connection hardware at this perimeter location, leading to improper structural installation.

Suggested next step: Please clarify the intended detail for the horizontal roof edge framing where 8F/S701 is currently called out. Should this reference a different eave/edge detail?

RFI draft: Please clarify the intended detail for the horizontal roof edge framing where 8F/S701 is currently called out. Should this reference a different eave/edge detail?

Summary: Drawing note 7 in the Concrete Materials Specification states that parallel bars shall be separated by the greater of 1-1/2 diameters or 1 inch. ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.1 requires clear spacing to be at least the greatest of 1 in., db, AND (4/3)dagg. The drawing omits the (4/3)dagg aggregate size criterion entirely. The concrete materials schedule on the same sheet specifies a maximum aggregate...

Why it matters: If reinforcement is placed at spacings that do not satisfy the aggregate size criterion, concrete may not flow properly between bars during placement, leading to honeycombing, voids, and inadequate bond. This is particularly problematic for foundations with 1-1/2 inch aggregate where the code-req...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer of record revise Note 7 of the Concrete Materials Specification to include the (4/3)dagg minimum clear spacing criterion per ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.1. The revised note should state that parallel bars shall be separated by the greatest of 1 in.,...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer of record revise Note 7 of the Concrete Materials Specification to include the (4/3)dagg minimum clear spacing criterion per ACI 318-19 Section 25.2.1. The revised note should state that parallel bars shall be separ...

Summary: Detail 2K Note 4 states splice lengths are based on "Class B" requirements and that "Class A" splices per ACI 318 may be reduced by 30 percent. ACI 318-19 eliminated the Class A and Class B lap splice classification system entirely. The current code's lap splice requirements are governed by Section 25.5.2, as referenced in commentary R26.6.1.1(d), which uses a unified approach without splice cl...

Why it matters: If a contractor or engineer applies the 30% reduction stated in Note 4 for conditions they interpret as qualifying for "Class A," the resulting splice lengths would be approximately 9% shorter than the code-minimum development length. For example, a #7 bar at f'c = 3,000 PSI has a tabulated splic...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to revise Detail 2K Note 4 to remove references to Class A and Class B splice classifications, which do not exist in ACI 318-19. The splice length table and associated notes should be updated to reflect the lap splice requirements of ACI 318-19 ...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to revise Detail 2K Note 4 to remove references to Class A and Class B splice classifications, which do not exist in ACI 318-19. The splice length table and associated notes should be updated to reflect the lap spli...

Summary: Detail B of the Pipe at Footing (Detail 8B) shows '2" CLR.' at both the upper and lower footing reinforcing layers, indicating 2 inches of concrete cover from the footing surfaces to the reinforcing steel. ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1 requires 3 inches of specified concrete cover for all reinforcement in concrete 'Cast against and permanently in contact with ground.' The same drawing sheet inclu...

Why it matters: If this detail is applied to unformed footings cast against undisturbed soil, the reinforcement would have only 2" of cover instead of the required 3", reducing the concrete protection against corrosion and potentially failing inspection. During construction, if the inspector identifies the discr...

Suggested next step: Request the structural engineer to clarify the required concrete cover for footing reinforcement in the Pipe at Footing Detail B. Per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, concrete cast against and permanently in contact with ground requires 3" minimum cover. If the 2" dimension is int...

RFI draft: Request the structural engineer to clarify the required concrete cover for footing reinforcement in the Pipe at Footing Detail B. Per ACI 318-19 Table 20.5.1.3.1, concrete cast against and permanently in contact with ground requires 3" minimum cov...

Summary: The rebar lap splice detail states "WIRE TOGETHER" as an alternative to providing a minimum clearance between lapped bars. ACI 318-19 requires minimum clear spacing for parallel nonprestressed reinforcement in a horizontal layer to be at least the greatest of 1 in., db, and (4/3)dagg. Allowing bars to be "wired together" (instead of maintaining the code-required minimum clear spacing) contradic...

Why it matters: If bars are installed without the required minimum clear spacing at lap splices, concrete consolidation around the splice can be impaired and inspectors may reject the installation, leading to demolition/rework and schedule delays.

Suggested next step: Revise the lap splice note to require clear spacing in accordance with ACI 318-19 25.2.1 (at least the greatest of 1 in., db, and (4/3)dagg) and clarify whether lapped bars are permitted to be in contact. If contact is intended, provide an ACI-compliant detailing approach and ...

RFI draft: Revise the lap splice note to require clear spacing in accordance with ACI 318-19 25.2.1 (at least the greatest of 1 in., db, and (4/3)dagg) and clarify whether lapped bars are permitted to be in contact. If contact is intended, provide an ACI-com...

Summary: The Basis of Design section on sheet S000 includes a line for "SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM(S)" but leaves the value blank. CBC Section 1603.1.5, item 7 requires the "Basic seismic force-resisting system(s)" to be shown on the construction documents regardless of whether seismic loads govern the design. All other seismic parameters (Risk Category III, SDC D, Ss, S1, SDS, SD1, R, Ω, Cd) are po...

Why it matters: For a Risk Category III structure in Seismic Design Category D, the SFRS type dictates the seismic detailing requirements, height limitations, and permitted irregularities per ASCE 7. A plan checker cannot approve the structural design without confirming the SFRS is appropriate and the associated...

Suggested next step: Request the Structural Engineer of Record identify the basic seismic force-resisting system(s) on the construction documents and confirm that the listed R=6.5, Ω=3.0, and Cd=4.0 values correspond to the named system per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. Also confirm that design base shear ...

RFI draft: Request the Structural Engineer of Record identify the basic seismic force-resisting system(s) on the construction documents and confirm that the listed R=6.5, Ω=3.0, and Cd=4.0 values correspond to the named system per ASCE 7 Table 12.2-1. Also c...

Summary: Structural steel specification note 7.C states 'NO WELDING PERMITTED ON MEMBERS SUPPORTING LOADS.' All structural steel members by definition support loads. This note, as written, would prohibit all welded connections on structural steel members. CBC Section 2205.1 requires that the design, fabrication, and erection of structural steel elements be in accordance with AISC 360, which fundamentall...

Why it matters: If note 7.C is interpreted literally during plan review or construction, it could prevent all welded connections on structural steel members, making the building impossible to construct per its structural design. A building department plan reviewer or special welding inspector citing this note co...

Suggested next step: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record clarify note 7.C to state 'No welding permitted on members while supporting loads' or equivalent language that restricts welding under active loading conditions during construction, rather than a blanket prohibition on welding all...

RFI draft: Request that the Structural Engineer of Record clarify note 7.C to state 'No welding permitted on members while supporting loads' or equivalent language that restricts welding under active loading conditions during construction, rather than a blan...